7 ms·

The goal isn't just to have a "veggie burger bleed", it's to replicate the experience of eating meat. Perhaps they have failed so far (according to your taste

The goal isn't just to have a "veggie burger bleed", it's to replicate the experience of eating meat. Perhaps they have failed so far (according to your taste test), but the goal is valid. If someone can find a way to make a product near-indistinguishable from meat without raising and killing animals, it would be a massive victory for the environment (meat production is CO2-intensive), for the cause of bringing decent food to poor people, and for reducing animal suffering. It may be one of the most underrated technological efforts happening right now IMO.

maxxxxx 8y ago
I think for that purpose it's better to work on lab-grown meat. Making veggies taste like meat seems misguided to me. Either eat real veggies or eat real meat.
- astura 8y ago
  What about the people who gave up meat for health reasons? There is a market for this, just because you aren't in the target market doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Fake burgers may be not be healthier. They are highly processed food made only for taste and not nutritional value. People should eat real vegetables for health reasons.
  - wolco 8y ago
    Processed foods generally are not healthy for you. Marketing is making this product appear healthy. There is a large market for processed foods and this product seems novel and has a decent taste so I could understand it's popularity.
- xigma 8y ago
  Let the market decide. Psychologically, "grown in a lab" is problematic. When people imagine that, they think of Frankenstein. When they imagine actual cattle, they think of green pastures. Neither fantasy is reflecting reality, but that's secondary. Mock plant-based beef is good middle-ground.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I don't think mock plant-based beef is a good way. It's highly processed food with a ton of weird ingredients. Fine as a snack or novelty from time to time but not good for daily consumption. I am not worried about people's perceptions of lab grown meat. Such perceptions change quickly if a product is good. They also shouldn't think of green pastures when they see meat. They should think of the hellish life most of the animals had.
- glass_of_water 8y ago
  Does it have to be one or the other though? What's wrong with funding projects such as the impossible burger until lab-grown meat is economically viable? I feel like your position is analogous to saying, "I think it's better to focus on nuclear fusion. Why waste time working on renewables?" Of course we'd like to power everything with fusion, but it's not there yet economically or technologically. So in the mean time, it's probably a good idea to also fund intermediate solutions. > Either eat real veggies or eat real meat. Could you explain this stance? Precisely what do you find objectionable about other people choosing to eat plant-based foods that happen to imitate meat? Edit: I see your position against the meat substitutes is primarily health-based. Almost certainly it would be harmful to one's health to consume foods such as the impossible burger frequently, but you should consider that the products that it's trying to replace aren't necessarily any healthier.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I have nothing against Impossible Burgers. I just don't think it's a contribution to better nutrition or a cultural change away from meat. It's a gimmick. My objection against imitation meat is the same I have against sugary breakfast cereals. They make people believe that they are doing something healthy but in reality they are eating highly processed food that has purely been created for taste and not for nutrition.
    - glass_of_water 8y ago
      From a nutritional standpoint, I agree that it would be unfortunate if people replaced healthy foods in their diet with the impossible burger. But I think part of your position is predicated on the idea that real meat (specifically ground beef in this case) is healthier. I don't think it's clear yet whether or not that's the case. Would you be willing to elaborate on the culture change point? Do you think that too few people are concerned about animal welfare to choose the impossible burger over ground beef even if it's competitive price-wise?
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
- derekp7 8y ago
  One thing I've noticed about the cuisine from cultures that have a high number of vegetarians in them, is how they don't try to imitate meat, but they don't taste/feel like a plate of vegetables either. They manage to achieve tasty meals that are in a category of their own.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I don't eat meat myself and I tell people who try to become vegetarian to not go the imitation meat route but instead learn to appreciate vegetables for themselves. Indian cooking is excellent for that.
gorilla_fight 8y ago
> If someone can find a way to make a product near-indistinguishable from meat without raising and killing animals, it would be a massive victory for the environment (meat production is CO2-intensive), for the cause of bringing decent food to poor people, and for reducing animal suffering. I'm all for reducing animal suffering (especially from CAFOs) but replacing meat with plants isn't necessarily a victory for the environment. Widespread factory farming agriculture has destroyed entire ecosystems. Ever flown over the midwest? You see miles and miles of plots of the same crops repeated over and over... monocultures with very little of the original grassland remaining. Agriculture has accomplished the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. "70% of all water from rivers and underground reserves is being spread onto ... irrigated land that grows one-third of the world’s food", according to _When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century_ by Fred Pearce. In some regions up to 90% of the water from the environment is used for irrigation. The green revolution as we know it is only possible due to fossil fuels, the Haber-Bosch process breaking down oil to create nitrogen fertilizer. With industrial farming, all in all an acre of corn requires about fifty gallons of oil according to _The Omnivores Dilemma_ by Michael Pollan. How much fossil fuel does a typical acre of wheat or soy consume? How sustainable is it compared to pastured meat, which thrives on the renewable resource of grassland? Bringing decent food to poor people is also a noble goal, but is fraught with a moral hazard. Many developed nations have agricultural subsidies, including the US at $1.173 billion for wheat and $610 million for soybeans as of the 2004 USDA report. The billions of dollars in subsidies causes an oversupply, and the developed nations are all too willing to dump onto other countries, putting local farmers out of business and advancing an imperialist dependency. Lierre Keith, vegan for 20 years (now ex-vegan), in her book _The Vegetarian Myth_ says it best: > Why should people in Cambodia be dependent on the US for their basic sustenance? It condemns them to participating in a market economy where they will have to dedicate their labor and local resources to produce raw materials, like timber and metal ore, or cheap consumer goods like sneakers or computer chips, for rich nations. With the pennies they get in return, they will then have to buy food from the same rich nations or their progeny, the grain cartels. This is a destructive, inhumane, and oppressive arrangement. I have to believe that the political vegetarians haven’t thought it through.
- dc_gregory 8y ago

maxxxxx 8y ago

I think for that purpose it's better to work on lab-grown meat. Making veggies taste like meat seems misguided to me. Either eat real veggies or eat real meat.

astura 8y ago
What about the people who gave up meat for health reasons? There is a market for this, just because you aren't in the target market doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Fake burgers may be not be healthier. They are highly processed food made only for taste and not nutritional value. People should eat real vegetables for health reasons.
- wolco 8y ago
  Processed foods generally are not healthy for you. Marketing is making this product appear healthy. There is a large market for processed foods and this product seems novel and has a decent taste so I could understand it's popularity.
xigma 8y ago
Let the market decide. Psychologically, "grown in a lab" is problematic. When people imagine that, they think of Frankenstein. When they imagine actual cattle, they think of green pastures. Neither fantasy is reflecting reality, but that's secondary. Mock plant-based beef is good middle-ground.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I don't think mock plant-based beef is a good way. It's highly processed food with a ton of weird ingredients. Fine as a snack or novelty from time to time but not good for daily consumption. I am not worried about people's perceptions of lab grown meat. Such perceptions change quickly if a product is good. They also shouldn't think of green pastures when they see meat. They should think of the hellish life most of the animals had.
glass_of_water 8y ago
Does it have to be one or the other though? What's wrong with funding projects such as the impossible burger until lab-grown meat is economically viable? I feel like your position is analogous to saying, "I think it's better to focus on nuclear fusion. Why waste time working on renewables?" Of course we'd like to power everything with fusion, but it's not there yet economically or technologically. So in the mean time, it's probably a good idea to also fund intermediate solutions. > Either eat real veggies or eat real meat. Could you explain this stance? Precisely what do you find objectionable about other people choosing to eat plant-based foods that happen to imitate meat? Edit: I see your position against the meat substitutes is primarily health-based. Almost certainly it would be harmful to one's health to consume foods such as the impossible burger frequently, but you should consider that the products that it's trying to replace aren't necessarily any healthier.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I have nothing against Impossible Burgers. I just don't think it's a contribution to better nutrition or a cultural change away from meat. It's a gimmick. My objection against imitation meat is the same I have against sugary breakfast cereals. They make people believe that they are doing something healthy but in reality they are eating highly processed food that has purely been created for taste and not for nutrition.
  - glass_of_water 8y ago
    From a nutritional standpoint, I agree that it would be unfortunate if people replaced healthy foods in their diet with the impossible burger. But I think part of your position is predicated on the idea that real meat (specifically ground beef in this case) is healthier. I don't think it's clear yet whether or not that's the case. Would you be willing to elaborate on the culture change point? Do you think that too few people are concerned about animal welfare to choose the impossible burger over ground beef even if it's competitive price-wise?
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
derekp7 8y ago
One thing I've noticed about the cuisine from cultures that have a high number of vegetarians in them, is how they don't try to imitate meat, but they don't taste/feel like a plate of vegetables either. They manage to achieve tasty meals that are in a category of their own.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I don't eat meat myself and I tell people who try to become vegetarian to not go the imitation meat route but instead learn to appreciate vegetables for themselves. Indian cooking is excellent for that.

gorilla_fight 8y ago

> If someone can find a way to make a product near-indistinguishable from meat without raising and killing animals, it would be a massive victory for the environment (meat production is CO2-intensive), for the cause of bringing decent food to poor people, and for reducing animal suffering. I'm all for reducing animal suffering (especially from CAFOs) but replacing meat with plants isn't necessarily a victory for the environment. Widespread factory farming agriculture has destroyed entire ecosystems. Ever flown over the midwest? You see miles and miles of plots of the same crops repeated over and over... monocultures with very little of the original grassland remaining. Agriculture has accomplished the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. "70% of all water from rivers and underground reserves is being spread onto ... irrigated land that grows one-third of the world’s food", according to _When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century_ by Fred Pearce. In some regions up to 90% of the water from the environment is used for irrigation. The green revolution as we know it is only possible due to fossil fuels, the Haber-Bosch process breaking down oil to create nitrogen fertilizer. With industrial farming, all in all an acre of corn requires about fifty gallons of oil according to _The Omnivores Dilemma_ by Michael Pollan. How much fossil fuel does a typical acre of wheat or soy consume? How sustainable is it compared to pastured meat, which thrives on the renewable resource of grassland? Bringing decent food to poor people is also a noble goal, but is fraught with a moral hazard. Many developed nations have agricultural subsidies, including the US at $1.173 billion for wheat and $610 million for soybeans as of the 2004 USDA report. The billions of dollars in subsidies causes an oversupply, and the developed nations are all too willing to dump onto other countries, putting local farmers out of business and advancing an imperialist dependency. Lierre Keith, vegan for 20 years (now ex-vegan), in her book _The Vegetarian Myth_ says it best: > Why should people in Cambodia be dependent on the US for their basic sustenance? It condemns them to participating in a market economy where they will have to dedicate their labor and local resources to produce raw materials, like timber and metal ore, or cheap consumer goods like sneakers or computer chips, for rich nations. With the pennies they get in return, they will then have to buy food from the same rich nations or their progeny, the grain cartels. This is a destructive, inhumane, and oppressive arrangement. I have to believe that the political vegetarians haven’t thought it through.

dc_gregory 8y ago